In The Canterville Ghost, Oscar Wilde wrote: “We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language.” Perhaps Wilde should have expanded his observation to the legal system, as well.

The United States owes a great deal of its political and legal customs to the United Kingdom. The USA inherited the British concept of the Common Law, so many of its laws and legal practices bear a strong resemblance to those of its cousins across the Atlantic. Despite the similarities, there are some pretty intriguing differences.

So, grab a cup of tea or coffee and a plate of biscuits or cookies, depending on your taste and dialect, as we delve into the quirks and customs of these two justice systems.

No Judge, No Jury…No Problem?

In the United Kingdom, you won’t find judges presiding over the majority of criminal cases. Instead, magistrates handle a whopping 95% of these cases without the need for a jury. The serious stuff? That’s reserved for the Crown Court. Even there, juries are a rarity, deciding a mere 12% of all cases. Interestingly, 59% of cases are resolved with a guilty plea, making a jury unnecessary.

The Gavel Gap

Picture a courtroom. If you’re imagining a judge hammering a gavel, you’re probably thinking of an American scene. British judges, however, have never used gavels. Order in a British court is maintained without the dramatic banging. Sometimes, a simple switch-off of the witness’s microphone does the trick!

Raise an Eyebrow, Not Your Voice

American courtroom dramas often feature lawyers leaping to their feet, shouting “Objection!” In the UK, the scene is far more subdued. British barristers might half-rise, cough discreetly, or merely raise an eyebrow to signal an objection. It’s all very understated and very British.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury?

The role of women in British juries has evolved significantly. In the 19th century, juries were exclusively male, with rare exceptions for all-women juries in specialized cases. Women only began serving on regular juries in 1920. This change was met with surprise, as illustrated by the murmurs of astonishment in a Bristol court when the judge addressed the jury as “Ladies and Gentlemen” for the first time. It wasn’t until 1974 that all British women were eligible for jury service, as jurors had to own or lease property—a hurdle for many married women whose homes were listed in their husbands’ names.

Juries: From Investigators to Impartial Listeners

Historically, British juries weren’t just passive listeners; they investigated the facts themselves. This changed in the mid-18th century, ensuring jurors no longer brought their personal knowledge into deliberations. Despite this shift towards impartiality, understanding legal directions remains a challenge. A 2010 study revealed that two-thirds of jurors in England and Wales struggled to grasp the judge’s instructions.

Bias and Timing in the Courtroom

Bias isn’t just a British concern. In Australia, a study found that 60% of people perceived defendants in glass docks as guilty, compared to 36% when defendants sat at a table, despite identical evidence. Timing also plays a role in judicial decisions. A 2011 Israeli study discovered judges are more likely to release prisoners at the start of the day or after a break. So, if you ever find yourself in court, aim for a post-lunch session!

---